We've been covering a recent First Amendment lawsuit targeting President Donald Trump—a novel legal argument in which Twitter users claim their constitutional rights were violated because the commander-in-chief blocked them from his personal @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle.

To be sure, it's a digital-age-based constitutional theory about social media rights in a day and age when politicians, from the president on down, are using their private accounts to discuss public affairs.

Further Reading

Now there's some legal precedent on the matter. It comes from a federal judge in Virginia who said that a local politician had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent because the politician briefly banned the constituent from the politician's personal Facebook account.

"The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards," US District Judge James Cacheris wrote Tuesday in a suit brought by a constituent against Phyllis Randall, the chairwoman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in Virginia.

The judge didn't issue any punishment against Randall, as the Facebook ban for constituent Brian Davison only lasted about 12 hours. That said, the judge noted Randall committed "a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by barring the constituent who posted about county corruption. What's more, the judge pointed out from the first sentence of the ruling that "this case raises important questions about the constitutional limitations applicable to social media accounts maintained by elected officials."

Randall's Facebook page, the judge ruled, "operates as a forum for speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution."

Trump card

This suit, at its most basic level, is nearly identical to the one lodged against Trump two weeks ago. Like the Virginia suit, the lawsuit against Trump names the chief executive's private account, which Trump uses on an almost daily basis as his political mouthpiece to the world.

"The @realDonaldTrump [Twitter] account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court.

The Trump suit was brought by a handful of Twitter users Trump blocked after they posted critical comments. The lawsuit, to which Trump has yet to respond in court, seeks a ruling that the president's actions were unconstitutional.

Back in Virginia

Meanwhile, Judge Cacheris noted that Randall still had the right to moderate Facebook comments and that it's not always unconstitutional to block commenters.

"Finally, government officials have at least a reasonably strong interest in moderating discussion on their Facebook pages in an expeditious manner. By permitting a commenter to repeatedly post inappropriate content pending a review process, a government official could easily fail to preserve their online forum for its intended purpose," the judge wrote.

What's more, the judge said that allowing online speakers to hijack or filibuster online conversations would "impinge on the First Amendment rights" of other forum participants.

"Given the prevalence of online 'trolls,' this is no mere hypothetical risk," the judge said.

Judge Cacheris had recently tossed a similar lawsuit from Davison, a software consultant. In that suit, Davison claimed his First Amendment rights were breached because a prosecutor had removed his comments from the prosecutor's official Facebook page. The judge noted that the deletion of the comments was acceptable because they were "clearly off-topic" comments.

David Kravets
The senior editor for Ars Technica. Founder of TYDN fake news site. Technologist. Political scientist. Humorist. Dad of two boys. Been doing journalism for so long I remember manual typewriters with real paper. Emaildavid.kravets@arstechnica.com//Twitter@dmkravets

I'll read the decision later, but my first reaction is that the idea that politicians can moderate trolls might be theoretically possible, but practically impossible. The question is going to be whether the moderation is a content-based restriction. I think you could moderate spammers or people who post in all caps, by I don't think you could moderate merely crude or "off topic" comments, nor do I think you could moderate personal attacks.

So, based on this, an elected official can't block a constituent... What about others?

Can they block people from outside their district? How about non-citizens?

Looking for the edges of this...

--

It's the first amendment. There are no edges.

Non-citizens may not be relevant to a vote, but they are protected under the first amendment. People outside of their districts may not be able to vote for them, but they are protected under the first amendment.

It's not "blocking a constituent". It's blocking a person's right to respond in an official public government arena.

If a politician is moronic enough to use their private social media to do that kind of thing, that's on them.

This is exactly the point I made in the Trump twitter blocking forum that was down voted to oblivion. While social media spaces are public forums people can be banned from them for disruptive, non-constructive, behavior. For example, the woman who was just banned from Trump's twitter for telling him that he sucks. If people get banned for disagreeing with a public official then that is a problem and the courts should put a stop to it. However, people posting obscenities, trolling, and/or name calling on someone else's page can be banned from that page. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one? While people have a first amendment right to say whatever they want to say that does not mean they are immune from the consequences. Just ask anyone who has lost their job or been stonewalled for their comments on social media.

I am assuming a politician can lobby or share opinions with their friends in a private setting and friends one day can be unfriended another. We don't force politicians to allow their friends to follow them 24/7 or force them to accept new friends. Blocking someone on Facebook only means the "friendship" relationship has been terminated. So why is this lawsuit successful?

Edit - my question, to people who understand this better, would the lawsuit go away if the profile is not public?

I am assuming a politician can lobby or share opinions with their friends in a private setting and friends one day can be unfriended another. We don't force politicians to allow their friends to follow them 24/7 or force them to accept new friends. Blocking someone on Facebook only means the "friendship" relationship has been terminated. So why is this lawsuit successful?

Edit - my question, to people who understand this better, would the lawsuit go away if the profile is not public?

Functionally, yes.

The issue is that these profiles are public - and in some cases (read: @realDonaldTrump) are the only way certain policy matters are announced.

This is exactly the point I made in the Trump twitter blocking forum that was down voted to oblivion. While social media spaces are public forums people can be banned from them for disruptive, non-constructive, behavior. For example, the woman who was just banned from Trump's twitter for telling him that he sucks. If people get banned for disagreeing with a public official then that is a problem and the courts should put a stop to it. However, people posting obscenities, trolling, and/or name calling on someone else's page can be banned from that page. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one? While people have a first amendment right to say whatever they want to say that does not mean they are immune from the consequences. Just ask anyone who has lost their job or been stonewalled for their comments on social media.

There's a difference between "you suck" and "you're a terrible president and you should be ashamed" vs. "you drink piss out of a Russian hooker's uncleaned toilet".

Insults should not be conflated with comments that clearly lack any value whatsoever.

This is exactly the point I made in the Trump twitter blocking forum that was down voted to oblivion. While social media spaces are public forums people can be banned from them for disruptive, non-constructive, behavior. For example, the woman who was just banned from Trump's twitter for telling him that he sucks. If people get banned for disagreeing with a public official then that is a problem and the courts should put a stop to it. However, people posting obscenities, trolling, and/or name calling on someone else's page can be banned from that page. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one? While people have a first amendment right to say whatever they want to say that does not mean they are immune from the consequences. Just ask anyone who has lost their job or been stonewalled for their comments on social media.

If Trump only blocked abusive people, he probably would be OK. But Trump seems to define "abusive" as anyone who won't bow before him and claim how great it is to be in the Trumpian presence.

This is exactly the point I made in the Trump twitter blocking forum that was down voted to oblivion. While social media spaces are public forums people can be banned from them for disruptive, non-constructive, behavior. For example, the woman who was just banned from Trump's twitter for telling him that he sucks. If people get banned for disagreeing with a public official then that is a problem and the courts should put a stop to it. However, people posting obscenities, trolling, and/or name calling on someone else's page can be banned from that page. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one? While people have a first amendment right to say whatever they want to say that does not mean they are immune from the consequences. Just ask anyone who has lost their job or been stonewalled for their comments on social media.

I don't know about your post in particular, but that was the general consensus of that thread among those believing Trump could not ban them (which seemed to me to be the majority of commenters).

Those supporting Trump's right to ban brought up, "what about racist comments", to which it was pointed out (again and again) that banning someone for making an inappropriate comment is quite different from banning someone because they simply disagree.

... However, people posting obscenities, trolling, or name calling on someone else's page can be banned. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one?

However, in real life situations a ban is rarely permanent. It's more likely that this type of offender would be kicked out of a singular public event. Unless the courts were involved the offender could not be permanently banned from all such public events.

It could be easily argued that the digital equivalent is to ban the offender on the single public post where they committed an offense. I'm not a lawyer but I believe that a permanent forum ban, similar to a real life permanent ban, then becomes a due process question for the courts.

This is exactly the point I made in the Trump twitter blocking forum that was down voted to oblivion. While social media spaces are public forums people can be banned from them for disruptive, non-constructive, behavior. For example, the woman who was just banned from Trump's twitter for telling him that he sucks. If people get banned for disagreeing with a public official then that is a problem and the courts should put a stop to it. However, people posting obscenities, trolling, and/or name calling on someone else's page can be banned from that page. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one? While people have a first amendment right to say whatever they want to say that does not mean they are immune from the consequences. Just ask anyone who has lost their job or been stonewalled for their comments on social media.

If she was banned for just telling him he sucks, sorry, but she shouldn't have been banned. That is the layman equivalent of "Mr. President, I believe your current performance as leader of our proud Nation leaves much to be desired. I do not believe you are the competent person you believe yourself to be."

Now, if she was posting threats, racist remarks, or truly offensive content repeatedly, then perhaps it would be enough to temporarily ban her.

The person's rights are not infringed. They're free to discuss the politician's conduct, both online and off, in any forum of their choice. Not even if the forum is operated by the government could the person say their rights were infringed, unless the government is using some protected basis to discriminate against participants, like race.

It's it a meme online for forums to be divided into everyone who has the same side? And it's unusual to find a forum online where participants have views that differ greatly. "Google bubble" and all of that (they show you search results you are likely to agree with rather than results that best match your query).

The person's rights are not infringed. They're free to discuss the politician's conduct, both online and off, in any forum of their choice.

If a government holds a town hall, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other building. Likewise, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other Facebook page to make their comments.

Quote:

Not even if the forum is operated by the government could the person say their rights were infringed, unless the government is using some protected basis to discriminate against participants, like race.

Incorrect. The government is not allowed to disqualify people from their public forums simply on the basis of whether they agree with the government or not.

Quote:

It's it a meme online for forums to be divided into everyone who has the same side? And it's unusual to find a forum online where participants have views that differ greatly. "Google bubble" and all of that (they show you search results you are likely to agree with rather than results that best match your query).

The First Amendment does not apply to all forums, just the public forums established by the government. That's what's different here.

I am assuming a politician can lobby or share opinions with their friends in a private setting and friends one day can be unfriended another. We don't force politicians to allow their friends to follow them 24/7 or force them to accept new friends. Blocking someone on Facebook only means the "friendship" relationship has been terminated. So why is this lawsuit successful?

Edit - my question, to people who understand this better, would the lawsuit go away if the profile is not public?

Blocking someone on facebook, at least from a personal profile level, stops them from seeing you entirely. From a public page perspective, I'm not sure how that works. I'd suspect it would work similarly in that blocking a person completely stops them from being able to see you, in which case they're being blocked from a public forum used to discuss policy.

I'll read the decision later, but my first reaction is that the idea that politicians can moderate trolls might be theoretically possible, but practically impossible. The question is going to be whether the moderation is a content-based restriction. I think you could moderate spammers or people who post in all caps, by I don't think you could moderate merely crude or "off topic" comments, nor do I think you could moderate personal attacks.

What would be needed in that case would be some clear basic rules around expected behavior and what is considered over the line (personal attacks, repeatedly posting the same thing, off topic, etc) It might also be helpful if deleted or removed messages had a way for moderators to indicate why they were removed, which I'm not sure we have.

I am assuming a politician can lobby or share opinions with their friends in a private setting and friends one day can be unfriended another. We don't force politicians to allow their friends to follow them 24/7 or force them to accept new friends. Blocking someone on Facebook only means the "friendship" relationship has been terminated. So why is this lawsuit successful?

Edit - my question, to people who understand this better, would the lawsuit go away if the profile is not public?

It is more nuanced than that I think. It is a matter of the platform being used for public or private discourse. Not whether the profile itself is public or private. No one denies that you have the right to kick someone off your personal social media profile. But, as a politician using social media as a platform for your speech, this ruling specifies what that politician, as a government representative, can do wrt the First Amendment and the users of that platform.

So, based on this, an elected official can't block a constituent... What about others?

Can they block people from outside their district? How about non-citizens?

Looking for the edges of this...

--

It's the first amendment. There are no edges.

Non-citizens may not be relevant to a vote, but they are protected under the first amendment. People outside of their districts may not be able to vote for them, but they are protected under the first amendment.

It's not "blocking a constituent". It's blocking a person's right to respond in an official public government arena.

If a politician is moronic enough to use their private social media to do that kind of thing, that's on them.

I expect it would also have the effect of pushing towards far more clear delineation of social media accounts/pages between 'official' and 'personal' (something Trump clearly doesn't give a shit about)

The person's rights are not infringed. They're free to discuss the politician's conduct, both online and off, in any forum of their choice. Not even if the forum is operated by the government could the person say their rights were infringed, unless the government is using some protected basis to discriminate against participants, like race.

It's it a meme online for forums to be divided into everyone who has the same side? And it's unusual to find a forum online where participants have views that differ greatly. "Google bubble" and all of that (they show you search results you are likely to agree with rather than results that best match your query).

You really need to read the 1st amendment, then read about what constitutionally protected forums are and then get back to us.

This is exactly the point I made in the Trump twitter blocking forum that was down voted to oblivion. While social media spaces are public forums people can be banned from them for disruptive, non-constructive, behavior. For example, the woman who was just banned from Trump's twitter for telling him that he sucks. If people get banned for disagreeing with a public official then that is a problem and the courts should put a stop to it. However, people posting obscenities, trolling, and/or name calling on someone else's page can be banned from that page. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one? While people have a first amendment right to say whatever they want to say that does not mean they are immune from the consequences. Just ask anyone who has lost their job or been stonewalled for their comments on social media.

The issue of banning trolls and those being disruptive was voted down in the previous thread because it had been repeatedly raised, AND addressed as being a red herring due to 'that's not what this suit is about', and nobody was saying you should not be able to ban a troll. "but trolls' had become the 'but her emails' of that thread. And while I can't say if it was the case for yourself, it was clear that many posting 'but trolls' had not bothered to read the thread given the number of times it came up and was debunked.

If a government holds a town hall, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other building. Likewise, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other Facebook page to make their comments.

The government is free to remove people who are disruptive at public meetings, and does so often, at every level. This person was being disruptive, or a reasonable person might think that, at least.

I also don't think a tweet or post is a "public forum", like those meetings you mentioned - which are scheduled, and have an agenda (topics the government will discuss at the meeting) and the public formally invited. The judge disagreed with this view, but a tweet really doesn't "quack like a duck" - it's a very different kind of proceeding and is not intended to be official.

I am assuming a politician can lobby or share opinions with their friends in a private setting and friends one day can be unfriended another. We don't force politicians to allow their friends to follow them 24/7 or force them to accept new friends. Blocking someone on Facebook only means the "friendship" relationship has been terminated. So why is this lawsuit successful?

Edit - my question, to people who understand this better, would the lawsuit go away if the profile is not public?

a non public profile would not be a public forum.. I think that's pretty obvious.

A personal profile that was used for purely personal things, and not discussions of their office, running for office, official announcements etc would not likely be a public forum, especially if there was also an 'official' non-personal profile related to the office that was used as a public forum.

(in other words, used in a way exactly unlike how trump is currently using his personal twitter account vs the POTUS account)

... However, people posting obscenities, trolling, or name calling on someone else's page can be banned. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one?

However, in real life situations a ban is rarely permanent. It's more likely that this type of offender would be kicked out of a singular public event. Unless the courts were involved the offender could not be permanently banned from all such public events.

It could be easily argued that the digital equivalent is to ban the offender on the single public post where they committed an offense. I'm not a lawyer but I believe that a permanent forum ban, similar to a real life permanent ban, then becomes a due process question for the courts.

Would love to hear from some lawyers on this.

In the physical world I believe there are some folks who have been repeatedly disruptive at enough public forums/meetings that the organizers of same have actually filed for restraining orders, which does pretty much amount to a 'perma-ban' for the duration of the restraining order.

If a government holds a town hall, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other building. Likewise, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other Facebook page to make their comments.

The government is free to remove people who are disruptive at public meetings, and does so often, at every level. This person was being disruptive, or a reasonable person might think that, at least.

From the ruling: "Based on Defendant’s testimony, the Court finds that Defendant banned Plaintiff from her Facebook page because she was offended by his criticism of her colleagues in the County government." So it was not for being disruptive that she was banned.

If a government holds a town hall, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other building. Likewise, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other Facebook page to make their comments.

The government is free to remove people who are disruptive at public meetings, and does so often, at every level. This person was being disruptive, or a reasonable person might think that, at least.

Posting an article about county corruption is disruptive? WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK?

This is exactly the point I made in the Trump twitter blocking forum that was down voted to oblivion. While social media spaces are public forums people can be banned from them for disruptive, non-constructive, behavior. For example, the woman who was just banned from Trump's twitter for telling him that he sucks. If people get banned for disagreeing with a public official then that is a problem and the courts should put a stop to it. However, people posting obscenities, trolling, and/or name calling on someone else's page can be banned from that page. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one? While people have a first amendment right to say whatever they want to say that does not mean they are immune from the consequences. Just ask anyone who has lost their job or been stonewalled for their comments on social media.

There's a difference between "you suck" and "you're a terrible president and you should be ashamed" vs. "you drink piss out of a Russian hooker's uncleaned toilet".

Insults should not be conflated with comments that clearly lack any value whatsoever.

The point of forbidding content-based restrictions on speech is that the government has no business deciding when a statement lacks value.

I am assuming a politician can lobby or share opinions with their friends in a private setting and friends one day can be unfriended another. We don't force politicians to allow their friends to follow them 24/7 or force them to accept new friends. Blocking someone on Facebook only means the "friendship" relationship has been terminated. So why is this lawsuit successful?

Edit - my question, to people who understand this better, would the lawsuit go away if the profile is not public?

Functionally, yes.

The issue is that these profiles are public - and in some cases (read: @realDonaldTrump) are the only way certain policy matters are announced.

Which is both funny and sad to see them try and claim both sides of that coin, that it's both an official platform and a nonofficial platform. Meanwhile he keeps making announces (e.g. transgendered soldiers) on it..

I am assuming a politician can lobby or share opinions with their friends in a private setting and friends one day can be unfriended another. We don't force politicians to allow their friends to follow them 24/7 or force them to accept new friends. Blocking someone on Facebook only means the "friendship" relationship has been terminated. So why is this lawsuit successful?

Edit - my question, to people who understand this better, would the lawsuit go away if the profile is not public?

Blocking someone on facebook, at least from a personal profile level, stops them from seeing you entirely. From a public page perspective, I'm not sure how that works. I'd suspect it would work similarly in that blocking a person completely stops them from being able to see you, in which case they're being blocked from a public forum used to discuss policy.

It's a GIANT mistake (that I see made over and over) to focus on the 'seeing', that's not a first amendment issue, it's the inability to participate, to post comments, responses, etc, to get your chance to SPEAK in the public forum that is the central issue in terms of the first amendment. Prior Restraint I believe it is called.

If a government holds a town hall, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other building. Likewise, they can't tell those who disagree with them to go to some other Facebook page to make their comments.

The government is free to remove people who are disruptive at public meetings, and does so often, at every level. This person was being disruptive, or a reasonable person might think that, at least.

I also don't think a tweet or post is a "public forum", like those meetings you mentioned - which are scheduled, and have an agenda (topics the government will discuss at the meeting) and the public formally invited. The judge disagreed with this view, but a tweet really doesn't "quack like a duck" - it's a very different kind of proceeding and is not intended to be official.

That might be true if:1) this case was about tweets and not facebook.2) tweets were purely one way, without an ability to respond, and for followers of the person tweeting being able to see those responses. It's that two way discourse that creates a forum, especially when the original tweeter responds to replies3) in the case of Trump, the he used his personal account for only personal things, and it had not been declared as official by other white house communications staff. (in which case the POTUS account would be the public forum)

I'll read the decision later, but my first reaction is that the idea that politicians can moderate trolls might be theoretically possible, but practically impossible. The question is going to be whether the moderation is a content-based restriction. I think you could moderate spammers or people who post in all caps, by I don't think you could moderate merely crude or "off topic" comments, nor do I think you could moderate personal attacks.

What would be needed in that case would be some clear basic rules around expected behavior and what is considered over the line (personal attacks, repeatedly posting the same thing, off topic, etc) It might also be helpful if deleted or removed messages had a way for moderators to indicate why they were removed, which I'm not sure we have.

So if the ability to comment on a politician's Facebook page is protected under the first amendment, doesn't that mean Facebook is now prohibited from banning people from their platform just as much as a politician would be from blocking that person themselves? Both actions result in the blocked person being unable to comment further on the politician's page.

Also, I get what everyone's saying here about the line between disruptive behavior and protected speech, but not everyone's going to agree on precisely where that line is, and I think the person who got blocked is probably going to disagree about what side of that line they were on the vast majority of the time. What's to stop those people from suing Facebook en masse? I suspect that if this ruling stands, banning people from a social media platform is about to get a whole lot harder.

... However, people posting obscenities, trolling, or name calling on someone else's page can be banned. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one?

However, in real life situations a ban is rarely permanent. It's more likely that this type of offender would be kicked out of a singular public event. Unless the courts were involved the offender could not be permanently banned from all such public events.

It could be easily argued that the digital equivalent is to ban the offender on the single public post where they committed an offense. I'm not a lawyer but I believe that a permanent forum ban, similar to a real life permanent ban, then becomes a due process question for the courts.

Would love to hear from some lawyers on this.

In the physical world I believe there are some folks who have been repeatedly disruptive at enough public forums/meetings that the organizers of same have actually filed for restraining orders, which does pretty much amount to a 'perma-ban' for the duration of the restraining order.

Right, but that requires a court order. Are politicians going to need a court order in order from now on in order to legally block anyone on Facebook?

So if the ability to comment on a politician's Facebook page is protected under the first amendment, doesn't that mean Facebook is now prohibited from banning people from their platform just as much as a politician would be from blocking that person themselves? Both actions result in the blocked person being unable to comment further on the politician's page.

Also, I get what everyone's saying here about the line between disruptive behavior and protected speech, but not everyone's going to agree on precisely where that line is, and I think the person who got blocked is probably going to disagree about what side of that line they were on the vast majority of the time. What's to stop those people from suing Facebook en masse? I suspect that if this ruling stands, banning people from a social media platform is about to get a whole lot harder.

I think it depends on the reason for being banned. Venues, be they physical or virtual generally have rules regarding acceptable behavior. Those who violate those rules can be thrown out. Now there might be an issue if a rule was trying to stipulate something like 'you can't disagree' but that's not anything I've ever seen on terms of service for twitter or facebook.

This is basically yet another rehash of 'but what about trolls' and in this case the judge already addressed that very thing.

So if the ability to comment on a politician's Facebook page is protected under the first amendment, doesn't that mean Facebook is now prohibited from banning people from their platform just as much as a politician would be from blocking that person themselves? Both actions result in the blocked person being unable to comment further on the politician's page.

I don't know what it is, but I imagine there is precedence for this already. Can the owner of a hotel, where a politician is holding a town hall in the ball room, eject people?

... However, people posting obscenities, trolling, or name calling on someone else's page can be banned. The same thing would happen in a real life forum, why not in the digital one?

However, in real life situations a ban is rarely permanent. It's more likely that this type of offender would be kicked out of a singular public event. Unless the courts were involved the offender could not be permanently banned from all such public events.

It could be easily argued that the digital equivalent is to ban the offender on the single public post where they committed an offense. I'm not a lawyer but I believe that a permanent forum ban, similar to a real life permanent ban, then becomes a due process question for the courts.

Would love to hear from some lawyers on this.

In the physical world I believe there are some folks who have been repeatedly disruptive at enough public forums/meetings that the organizers of same have actually filed for restraining orders, which does pretty much amount to a 'perma-ban' for the duration of the restraining order.

Right, but that requires a court order. Are politicians going to need a court order in order from now on in order to legally block anyone on Facebook?

Did you read what the judge said about the need to still be able to deal with trolls? I think that's your answer right there.

Secondly if your trollish behavior is bad enough to violate the terms of service, facebook/twitter themselves could ban you, they still have that right